![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/678f95ef15154106d12600b7cca9b7db.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 30/03/06, James Knott
FWIW, I have SUSE 9.1 running on a 166 MHz (IIRC) Pentium, with 64 MB, though it's only used as my firewall. I've also got a 866 MHz Compaq with 128 MB (IIRC) running SUSE 10, for my test system. While it's not the fastest, it is usable.
On the other hand, SUSE 10 on my own ThinkPad R31 (1.18 GHz PIII & 384 MB) significantly outperforms XP on my work ThinkPad T30 (1.8 GHz P4 & 512 MB). I can also tell you some horror stories about the users I have to support, running XP on various systems (such as 15 minutes to boot up!). So a computer that's inadequate for XP is often fine with Linux.
I've got to agree. I tend to run many different flavours of Linux on various old - and ancient, PC speaking - computers. Fair enough, if I want to run a distro with all bells and whistles then I expect the PC to run slooooooow. Many people have software on their PC that they will never use. I like to have just what I know I will be using. All this boils down to the fact that I can run new distros with as little 128 or even 96mb of RAM. Often on 6gb drives and CPU's that are around 500mhz or even less in some cases. That's the beauty of Linux :-) -- ============================================== I am only human, please forgive me if I make a mistake it is not deliberate. ============================================== Xmas may be over but, PLEASE DON'T drink and drive you'll make it to the next one that way. Kevan Farmer Linux user #373362 Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR